(01-02-2013 05:46 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: Can you define those mass shootings in Australia? Near as I can find there was only one.

Also the Wilkpedia article is for Switzerland, not Australia

The wikipedia article for Switzerland was for the ammunition supplied by the government. I realize they can still have personal ammo but the fact that the government recognizes the need to control ammunition is a good thing.

Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years.

To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.

Yeah mass shootings went down in the Land Down Under. I stand corrected. Though there was one in October 2002.

It worked for the Aussies but it's never worked in the US as the United States is a completely different animal. The Assault Weapons Ban and other gun control measures don't seem to curb this violence here. I'd have to pin the culprit
cultural and societal differences between the two countries.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

(01-02-2013 01:08 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Comparing any position in any debate to religion is childish and unhelpful. Atheists can be described as being fanatical. Feminists can. LGBT supporters can. Any time you have a basic incompatibility of views and a degree of passion, the comparison with religion can be made. The problem is it can be made from both directions, and it does nothing to further or resolve the debate. Instead it incites anger and passion and leads to pissing matches about whose position is more religious than the other. It's unhelpful.

It comes down to, "Do you see firearms as having a net negative effect on our society, or a net positive effect?"

I say: a very slight negative, but the "cures" proposed are generally worse than the original problem. If this nation had started gun-free and stayed gun-free, then fine, we wouldn't have an issue here. But there are almost as many guns as people in America. "Gun type" or "assault weapon" bans are ineffective and pointless. Ammunition limit bans are just... idiotic on every level. Waiting periods have indeterminate outcomes. The only thing that will be really effective at "solving" this "gun problem" is a total gun ban, and that will cause social problems and hatred that will last a century or more. Not worth it.

There are things we can do to improve our gun laws, which are practical and achievable in the current political climate. We can improve the background check system and laws governing gun sales. We can make Bumpski stocks NFA-regulated machine gun parts. We could, I dunno, legalize marijuana and thus decriminalize a large part of the population and significantly decrease the power of gangs and drug cartels which make up a large portion of gun crime anyway. Those are actually helpful ideas. "You can't have that type of gun!" is not.

I think you missed the entire point. The comparison to religion only came as a very small part of what I said, and that same type of fanaticism was address as being toward every issue. Also, an accurate comparison, or proper analogy, can't always be made, or to the extent you are trying to imply.

The analogy was just to put the larger point into perspective, which is basically the same problem that is addressed in my signature, extended to question.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(01-02-2013 01:32 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote: If it could be shown that you can save just one life by curtailing the Bill or Rights ie the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendmens or any other civil liberty, would you?

The issue here is that rights do come with responsibilities. And we accept certain tradeoffs for the benefits provided by these liberties.

Is this one of those loaded questions?

I obviously don't think that the 2nd Amendment needs to be stretched, especially anymore than it already seems to be stretched currently, and maybe, the interpretation would be something I'd view as a more proper interpretation, in order to get a wide control of guns.

The Constitution is broad, I don't really see any, or much, curtailing needed.

I'm an atheist and that follows me, however. You have what liberties and rights are granted by other people, supported and enforced collectively by a government, making them just written down, enforced law; or you have, then, only what you can naturally protect by yourself, as an individual, or with collective power as a family, tribe, etc. There isn't any natural rights or liberties, that are part of some sort of natural order, granted by a higher power. Rationality is an ability humans possess and that allows for philosophy and morality/ethics, and I view it as a good idea that laws and/or actions reflect that in highest possible regard, but 'liberties' and 'freedoms' are just things people have in their heads or have had granted how I described. Laws can reflect what is logically, or rationally, moral or immoral, to whatever extent, but they are still just written down, and only good depending on power gained toward enforcement.

I'm not an anarchist/libertarian though, if that is what you are asking. I support authority, and I don't try to hide that fact. I thought that should have been pretty clear by now. Maybe I need to be more active on this site.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell

(01-02-2013 09:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote: To the point on my "tax the hell out of them" solution, I did not say tax everything into oblivion. That does not mean a bullet should be taxed at $10 per but maybe an increase of 50 cents per or a dollar per and guns get taxed differently depending on its use. Ergo, rifles for hunting are considered luxury since you don't need to hunt (very few do and they could get an exemption based on income) and are at a higher rate than those bought for defense.

And you are making an assumption that the government will just misuse or screw-up the taxation because you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it. But it certainly isn't to just assume that all government is bad and inefficient.

I am well aware of just how poor most of Tennessee is (heck, I ain't feeding towards the top of the barrel either) but places like that arguably need guns for self-defense the least as rural areas have lower crime rates. I know how much some of them spend on guns and ammunition and taxing it would not break them (like my brother). Additional taxes for his hobby is not adding any real burden. Now, the people who don't make as much and spend more on their guns? Yea. They are going to have to get a new hobby besides their death machine.

I respect you and all, but you side-stepped quite a few of the points I made and then implied a straw-man. Just because I think your tax idea sucks on this particular issue doesn't mean I want to get rid of the government. We both know how much and how often tax dollars are misappropriated. You replied like you did either because you have a weak argument, or you were just lazy. Which is it? No ill will...

Your argument for taxes was based off of two points. 1) that people can't afford it and 2) that it would be misused by the government.

Point 1 would make sense were this a tax on a necessary item. Like food (such is the debate of income vs taxes on commodities). This is a tax on luxury items, unless the case is made that it is necessary for hunting for those unable to afford not to hunt and exceptions could be made then.

Point 2 implies that a tax is pointless because the government will just mess it up. That point is absurd and either means there is nothing wrong with the tax and we should fix government or not tax people do add to avoid government corruption. I think you may be confusing the straw man fallacy there a bit.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

The Bearded Dude Wrote:I think you may be confusing the straw man fallacy there a bit.

Nope.

Dark Light Wrote:The tax money collected in this hypothetical would be largely wasted and misappropriated.

The Bearded Dude Wrote:...you don't like the government charging more taxes. The solution to our problems is not to get rid of government, nor is it to blindly trust it.

wikipedia Wrote:A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

fallacyfiles.org Wrote:A straw man argument occurs in the context of a debate―formal or informal―when one side attacks a position―the "straw man"―not held by the other side, then acts as though the other side's position has been refuted.

There is a difference between ordinance and arms. Currently no gun (arms) is banned outright in the US. Even fully automatic .50 caliber belt fed machine guns can be owned if you submit to the proper background checks and acquire the appropriate license. The next weapon on the ladder would probably be something along the lines of an RPG or grenade launcher. Again, a weapon that a US civilian can own with the appropriate license. Next step might be a surface to air missile. That is classified as ordinance and is not legal in the hands of a civilian.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

(04-02-2013 03:24 PM)germanyt Wrote: There is a difference between ordinance and arms. Currently no gun (arms) is banned outright in the US. Even fully automatic .50 caliber belt fed machine guns can be owned if you submit to the proper background checks and acquire the appropriate license. The next weapon on the ladder would probably be something along the lines of an RPG or grenade launcher. Again, a weapon that a US civilian can own with the appropriate license. Next step might be a surface to air missile. That is classified as ordinance and is not legal in the hands of a civilian.

Ordnance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(04-02-2013 03:24 PM)germanyt Wrote: There is a difference between ordinance and arms. Currently no gun (arms) is banned outright in the US. Even fully automatic .50 caliber belt fed machine guns can be owned if you submit to the proper background checks and acquire the appropriate license. The next weapon on the ladder would probably be something along the lines of an RPG or grenade launcher. Again, a weapon that a US civilian can own with the appropriate license. Next step might be a surface to air missile. That is classified as ordinance and is not legal in the hands of a civilian.

Ordnance.

I thought so but my spell check didn't catch it so I thought I was wrong.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”